4 ms·

This concept blew my mind when I internalized it. Same reason why honest signals exist. A peacock with very rich feathers is a fitness disadvantage. But they

by LASR 2y ago

This concept blew my mind when I internalized it. Same reason why honest signals exist. A peacock with very rich feathers is a fitness disadvantage. But they find mates more successfully. These traits persist in the gene pool. It’s so much easier to just evolve a cheating trait that does the job of finding a mate even without the required fitness. But the signals stay honest for the most part. Why? It’s because ultimately the species survives, not the individuals. In a lot of cases, something that makes the individual more fit also makes the species more fit. But in some cases, they are inversely proportional. Hence you end up with suicidal genes that favor the death of the individuals for the greater good of the species. Now extrapolating to human society, most nations have landed on a system where taxes are paid to the government. Every individual might complain and try to get out of paying. But we do. Why? Maybe because societies where that wasn’t a thing were less fit and didn’t last long enough to still be around.

pfdietz 2y ago
> It’s because ultimately the species survives, not the individuals. No, this is wrong. "Survival of the species" isn't a basis for selection. It will not lead to a gene becoming more prevalent in a population of interbreeding individuals. Bees sacrifice themselves because they share genes with the queen; genes that are involved in this sacrifice increase their relative abundance in the bee gene pool by increasing the fitness of the superorganism that is the colony.
- Salgat 2y ago
  That's not entirely true. For example, being gay is hypothesized to give an evolutionary advantage because you can provide care for your sibling's children, who share their dna with you. Same goes for early menopause. That can extend to small villages where individuals may give up their own resources for a greater survival chance of their kin within the collective.
  - asingnh 2y ago
    Are homosexuality and early menopause genetic conditions?
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      Seems quite likely to me.
    - jahewson 2y ago
      Everything that makes us human is constrained by the possibilities offered by our genes. Epigenetics, development, and environment are downstream of that. It is our genes that allow for sexual reproduction in the first place and why we’re attracted to other humans and not, say, trees.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - alt227 2y ago
    Pre 1800, the average life expectancy was aged between 20-40 [1]. I think the menopause is something that was experienced by extremely few people until after then. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
    - olddustytrail 2y ago
      Average life expectancy is misleading. You want perhaps median life expectancy after the age of 20.
- meindnoch 2y ago
  >"Survival of the species" isn't a basis for selection. It will not lead to a gene becoming more prevalent in a population of interbreeding individuals. Well, "species" is but a loosely defined set of genes.
  - pfdietz 2y ago
    And group selection cannot increase the frequency of a gene in that collection.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think you are missing a few points. First, is the adversarial nature of mate selection. A female peacock who falls for a trick will have fewer offspring that survive. The discerning hen will do better. Honest communication works because it is backed up actual fitness. It doesn't require group selection. Second, I think there is a lot more going on with respect to taxes. Taxes have existed for maybe 10,000 years. An armed man demanding half your stuff or they kill your family is a tax too. Same for a mature lion that eats what another animal killed. I would argue taxes are an inherent result of power imbalances among humans. Differences give rise to power differentials, which give rise to security concessions, which consolidate into kingdoms and nations.
- notahacker 2y ago
  > Taxes have existed for maybe 10,000 years. An armed man demanding half your stuff or they kill your family is a tax too. Same for a mature lion that eats what another animal killed. I would argue taxes are an inherent result of power imbalances among humans. Differences give rise to power differentials, which give rise to security concessions, which consolidate into kingdoms and nations Tax fits the model pretty well. Defending against bandits who steal everything and move on is expensive, so kings that claim much smaller portions of wealth and scare off bandits tend to lead to better nations. (Then you've got modern democracies, that typically tax much more, but in a way which is actually compatible with higher growth because the money tends to be spent back into the sluggish parts of the economy rather than spent on zero sum competition with neighbouring kings/lords over territorial tax bases and precious import collection)

by LASR 2y ago

pfdietz 2y ago

> It’s because ultimately the species survives, not the individuals. No, this is wrong. "Survival of the species" isn't a basis for selection. It will not lead to a gene becoming more prevalent in a population of interbreeding individuals. Bees sacrifice themselves because they share genes with the queen; genes that are involved in this sacrifice increase their relative abundance in the bee gene pool by increasing the fitness of the superorganism that is the colony.

Salgat 2y ago
That's not entirely true. For example, being gay is hypothesized to give an evolutionary advantage because you can provide care for your sibling's children, who share their dna with you. Same goes for early menopause. That can extend to small villages where individuals may give up their own resources for a greater survival chance of their kin within the collective.
- asingnh 2y ago
  Are homosexuality and early menopause genetic conditions?
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Seems quite likely to me.
  - jahewson 2y ago
    Everything that makes us human is constrained by the possibilities offered by our genes. Epigenetics, development, and environment are downstream of that. It is our genes that allow for sexual reproduction in the first place and why we’re attracted to other humans and not, say, trees.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- alt227 2y ago
  Pre 1800, the average life expectancy was aged between 20-40 [1]. I think the menopause is something that was experienced by extremely few people until after then. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
  - olddustytrail 2y ago
    Average life expectancy is misleading. You want perhaps median life expectancy after the age of 20.
meindnoch 2y ago
>"Survival of the species" isn't a basis for selection. It will not lead to a gene becoming more prevalent in a population of interbreeding individuals. Well, "species" is but a loosely defined set of genes.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  And group selection cannot increase the frequency of a gene in that collection.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think you are missing a few points. First, is the adversarial nature of mate selection. A female peacock who falls for a trick will have fewer offspring that survive. The discerning hen will do better. Honest communication works because it is backed up actual fitness. It doesn't require group selection. Second, I think there is a lot more going on with respect to taxes. Taxes have existed for maybe 10,000 years. An armed man demanding half your stuff or they kill your family is a tax too. Same for a mature lion that eats what another animal killed. I would argue taxes are an inherent result of power imbalances among humans. Differences give rise to power differentials, which give rise to security concessions, which consolidate into kingdoms and nations.

notahacker 2y ago
> Taxes have existed for maybe 10,000 years. An armed man demanding half your stuff or they kill your family is a tax too. Same for a mature lion that eats what another animal killed. I would argue taxes are an inherent result of power imbalances among humans. Differences give rise to power differentials, which give rise to security concessions, which consolidate into kingdoms and nations Tax fits the model pretty well. Defending against bandits who steal everything and move on is expensive, so kings that claim much smaller portions of wealth and scare off bandits tend to lead to better nations. (Then you've got modern democracies, that typically tax much more, but in a way which is actually compatible with higher growth because the money tends to be spent back into the sluggish parts of the economy rather than spent on zero sum competition with neighbouring kings/lords over territorial tax bases and precious import collection)